Tensions
Between NATO
And Russia Escalate
By Peter Schwarz
18 July, 2007
WSWS.org
Tensions
between NATO and the former states of the Soviet Union reached a new
climax last weekend, following Russia’s unilateral withdrawal
from the Treaty for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CSE).
Russian President Vladimir
Putin issued a presidential decree Saturday, effectively annulling the
treaty. His decision takes effect in 150 days, should no new agreement
be reached with NATO. Moscow has signalled its willingness to participate
in talks, with the Russian State Department saying it is interested
in further negotiations over the issues in contention.
The CSE treaty—negotiated
in 1990 and ratified by 22 states in 1992—put an end to the post-war
standoff between Washington and its allies, on the one side, and the
Stalinist-ruled former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc allies, on the
other. It set upper limits on the number of conventional weapons (tanks,
artillery, combat aircraft and helicopters) that could be stationed
on European soil. The result was a cutback in the big defensive armies
assembled on both sides of the former Iron Curtain and their replacement
by much smaller, more modern strike forces designed for worldwide intervention.
The dissolution of the Warsaw
Pact and the Soviet Union, together with NATO membership for a number
of former Eastern bloc countries, undermined the basis of the CSE treaty
in its old form. A revised CSE treaty (ACSE) was concluded in Istanbul
in 1999 by a total of 30 states, but this treaty has only been ratified
by Russia, Byelorussia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
The NATO states delayed any
ratification, arguing that first Russia must withdraw its troops stationed
in rebel provinces of Georgia and Moldavia. Moscow, however, denies
that agreement on the withdrawal of its troops from Georgia and Moldavia
was ever a firm part of the ACSE agreement.
The NATO states’ refusal
to ratify the ACSE agreement is now being used by Russia to justify
its own decision to quit the CSE treaty. Putin had already threatened
such a move in April of this year. On Saturday, he merely spoke in general
terms of “extraordinary circumstances,” which induced him
to make his decision. It is clear, however, that the suspension of the
CSE treaty represents a new stage in the steadily escalating confrontation
between Moscow and Washington.
Russia feels threatened by
Washington’s aggressive intervention in central Asia and eastern
Europe and is seeking to restore its role as a regional and global power
broker. Its hands have been strengthened by rising oil and gas revenues,
as well by the American debacle in Iraq.
Moscow has reacted sharply
to plans for erecting elements of an American anti-missile system in
Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as to the setting up of US military
bases in Romania and Bulgaria. The Kremlin also regards NATO membership
for Georgia and Ukraine as unacceptable. Georgia lies at the heart of
a region through which all the important energy pipelines of central
Asia cross; and the admission of Ukraine into NATO would represent a
major advance by the Western alliance towards Moscow and its presence
in an area regarded for centuries as Russia’s exclusive preserve.
There are also a number of
contentious international issues. Russia rejects independence for Kosovo—a
move endorsed by the US and the European Union. It also opposes America’s
confrontational course with Iran and has criticised the huge flow of
US weaponry to Lebanon.
The debate is now underway
inside NATO circles as to whether Russia’s cancellation of the
CSE treaty is merely a means for Moscow to induce NATO to ratify the
ACSE contract and give way on other contested questions, or whether
it augurs the beginning of a new arms race. Should the agreement be
rendered invalid towards the end of the year, Russia could begin assembling
large weapons arsenals at its western border and would no longer be
subject to NATO inspections.
In Germany, the Social Democratic
deputy Hans-Peter Bartels called for calm in response to Putin’s
initiative, portraying it as merely “a tactical manoeuvre by the
Russians” that should not be seen as a return to the arms race.
“There would be no enormous wave of rearmament rolling over us.”
His Green Party colleague, Winfried Nachtwei, took a different view,
warning of a “severe setback for disarmament and cooperative security
in Europe.”
In fact, the undermining
of the disarmament treaties reached with the Soviet Union began some
time ago. The US made the first step in 2001 with its unilateral renunciation
of the 30-year-old ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty, which regulates
the stationing of anti-missile defence systems. Washington justified
its decision by arguing that the old treaty no longer served American
interests.
If no agreement is reached
with regard to CSE, there is speculation that other treaties could also
be threatened. Kremlin advisor Gleb Pawlowski commented on Putin’s
latest step with the remark, “If today’s message is ignored,
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty will be next.”
The INF (Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces) treaty negotiated in 1987 required that the US and the
Soviet Union destroy all their middle- and short-range missiles (500
to 5,500 kilometres). As a result, the US scrapped 846 and the Soviet
Union 1,846 missiles. The treaty had been preceded by major protests
against the stationing of American Pershing II and Russian SS-20 missiles
in Europe. In Germany alone, hundreds of thousands had taken to the
streets in protest.
Now, for the first time since
the 1980s, Europe confronts a violent spiral of rearmament, and some
commentators are already speaking of a second Cold War. This confronts
European governments, squeezed between the US and Russia, with a major
dilemma.
On the one hand, they depend
for political and economic reasons on a good relationship with Russia,
which amongst other things is a major source of European energy. Also
with regard to foreign policy—e.g., over the issue of Iran—co-operation
with Russia increases European leverage on the international stage.
A new arms race in Europe
would also confront European nations with huge financial difficulties.
In the 1990s, they had been able to make major cuts in their military
budgets through the reduction of troop levels and the dismantling of
conventional weapons—sums that were then spent on developing armed
forces with high-tech weaponry designed for international intervention.
At the same time, the European
governments refrained from any open conflict with the US, which constituted
its most important ally and business partner at the end of the Second
World War. Despite European criticism of the Iraq war, European governments
are fearful of an American defeat in Iraq, which would undermine their
own imperialist interests in the Middle East.
Washington has repeatedly
sought to exploit this dilemma by driving a wedge between Europe and
Russia in order to split Europe. In this endeavour, it is able to rely
on the support of the new European Union member governments in eastern
Europe, whose ruling elites are overwhelming hostile to Russia and also
fearful of a French-German alliance that could dictate terms in Europe.
This became clear during
the Iraq war, when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his notorious
distinction between an “old” and “new” Europe.
Then came the recent decision over the stationing of a new US missile
system, which followed bilateral negotiations between Washington and
the Polish and Czech governments—bypassing NATO committees, where
Germany in particular has expressed its objections. While it is still
a mater of speculation as to whether the new missile system is technically
feasible, it has already fulfilled one purpose—to exacerbate tensions
between Europe and Russia.
American foreign policy aims
at encouraging divisions within Europe on the basis of the thesis put
forward by former US security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who declared
that “America’s capacity to exercise global primacy”
depends on whether Washington can prevent “the emergence of a
dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power.” This aim is facilitated
by the divisions already evident between the European governments, which
increasingly defend the interests of big business and the banks, thereby
asserting their own national interests, and undertaking increasingly
aggressive attacks on the social gains and democratic rights of the
European population.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.